August 2, 1994 - Part 1
August 2, 1994 - Part 1
(09:50:15) I talked to Ms. Nolan on February 4, and informed her that Treasury, RTC, and OGE were going to undertake the legal analysis related to recusal. I also informed her that I was only going to discuss procedure and that I bad no knowledge about any of the Substantive issues related to Madison. Ms. Nolan's notes indicate that we had a similar phone conversation on February 9. The only comment I remember Ms. Nolan mak- 324 ing on this subject was that the conclusion could become a precedent for similar circumstances in the future. Later on February 4, 1 went to the Office of Government Ethics and had a similar conversation with Mr. Campbell, the Deputy Director, and Gary Davis, the General Counsel. I noted again that I had no know ledge of the substance of the civil claims relating to Madison, explained the procedural framework and said that I had informed Ms. Nolan that we were going to analyze the, legal issues with OGE and RTC ethics officials. The OGE officials said they would work with Treasury and the RTC on the question. A few days later, Mr. Altman, Ms. Hanson, Ellen Kulka, RTC's General Counsel, and Arthur Kusinski, RTC's Senior Ethics Official, and I met with Mr. Altman to discuss the recusal issue, Mr. Altman directed us to ensure that our legal research and analysis was complete, thorough, and accurate, or words to that effect. In the following days, I worked on and concurred in the legal analysis and ethics opinion that was sent to Mr. Altman on February 18, 1994, by Mr. Kusinski. The Office of Government Ethics also concurred in that opinion. In essence that opinion said that there was no legal requirement that Mr. Altman recuse himself from Madison-related matters. I sent Mr. Kusinski's memorandum, with my own cover note, reiterating my concurrence to Mr. Altman on February 23, to ensure that there was no doubt about Treasury, RTC, and GE consensus on this issue. I believe there is another source of confusion in the public discussion about these meetings. Do they present issues of "ethics" or questions of "judgment." The word "unethical" has a connotation of something improper. The word "judgment" goes to the subjective reasoning power of human beings and possible human error, NOT improper behavior. In my years as an ethics lawyer, I have always said to Federal employees that if they check with us about some proposed action, and give us information about the context, and if we don't object to the activity, then criticism for the ethics call should shift to the ethics lawyer. For the February 2 meeting talking points, that ethics lawyer is me. I had an opportunity to object to the meeting, but didn't do so. I didn't object because there was nothing objectionable, in my view. It is not only unfair but inaccurate to criticize Mr. Altman or Ms. Hanson for doing something "unethical" in relation to the February meeting. That is my responsibility. That leaves the issue of judgment. As I noted before, I suggest that this be analyzed as a question of human reasoning power rather than one of improper behavior. Finally, one more comment. In my experience, ethics issues arise all the time in Federal agencies, both as considerations in decisionmaking and in connection with financial disclosure and other requirements applicable to officials appointed by the President. Secretary Bentsen introduced me to his new staff on the morning of January 21, 1993, and turned that first staff meeting over to me for a 90-minute seminar on Government ethics. The Secretary made it clear that ethical considerations were a matter of great importance for him. Based on my frequent inter 325 action with the senior officials at Treasury for the last 18 months, I believe that those officials have worked hard to conform to the many complex ethics rules applicable to senior officials. I have the highest regard for their ability, integrity, and professionalism, Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be pleased to respond to any questions from the Committee. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Foreman. Mr. DeVore, do you have a statement? COMMENT OF JACK DeVORE, FORMER ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, DC Mr. DEVORE. I do not, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Then we'll start with the question periods. I'm going to try today to keep within our time. I know there's a tendency to run over a bit, but I'm going to try to watch that very closely. I'm going to start by staying within the time myself in my first round here. Mr. Steiner, I want to start with the diary that you kept, I think it is an important document. You were the Special Assistant to Roger Altman from January until August, 1993. Then you became Chief of Staff to Secretary Bentsen, and that's a position you still hold. Is that right?